State v. Martin
| Decision Date | 13 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | 39234 |
| Citation | 228 N.W. 1,210 Iowa 376 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. R. W. MARTIN, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED APRIL 16, 1930.
Appeal from Keokuk District Court.--FRANK BECHLY, Judge.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the crime of bootlegging.
Affirmed.
Robert J. Shaw, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Attorney-general, and Neill Garrett, Assistant Attorney-general, for appellee.
WAGNER, J., not participating.
DE GRAFF, J.
On the 15th day of December, 1927, the grand jury of Keokuk County Iowa, indicted the defendant for the crime of bootlegging, alleged to have been committed on or about the 22d day of November, 1927, in Keokuk County. The evidence tended to show that, on said day, about 8:30 in the evening, in the town of What Cheer, Iowa, the defendant sold to one Murphy a half pint of alcohol, and received as the purchase price thereof the sum of $ 2.00. The purchaser was sitting in an automobile at the time of the transaction, and with him in the car was a party named Erpelding, who testified to the transaction of the sale.
Upon the trial on a plea of not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, resulting in a judgment duly entered by the court, whereby the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of Keokuk County for a term of five months, and to pay a fine of $ 300, with costs of prosecution. The primary proposition involves the correctness of the ruling of the trial court on appellant's motion to set aside the indictment, based on Sections 13781, 13782, Code, 1927.
I. It appears from the record that, prior to the trial, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the indictment. The grounds stated in said motion are as follows: First, the names of some of the witnesses examined before the grand jury are not indorsed thereon. Second, the minutes of the evidence of the witnesses examined before the grand jury are not returned therewith. Third, the indictment and the minutes thereto have not been presented and marked "filed," as prescribed by the Code.
In support of this motion, the defendant offered certain evidence for the purpose and with the intent to establish the fact that certain persons whose names were not indorsed on the indictment had appeared before the grand jury in this cause. Evidence was also tendered to prove that the clerk of the grand jury had in her possession the minutes of the evidence signed before the grand jury to establish the fact that certain persons had appeared before the grand jury whose names were not indorsed on the said indictment. Objections to this line of testimony were sustained by the trial court on the grounds stated in the objections: to wit, that the same is incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, not a subject of examination by counsel for the defendant, improper, not being confined to the grand jury that returned the indictment against this defendant, and not the best evidence. The clerk of the grand jury was asked, among other things: "Do you know of any witnesses who appeared before the grand jury against Bob Martin other than Murphy and Expelling?" The same objections, being interposed, were sustained. At the time of this ruling, the trial court said:
"I don't think it is competent for you to bring out any matter before the grand jury in the hearing of this motion, for the reason that the proceedings before the grand jury are secret, and required to be kept secret, and the court does not think this is in point so as to entitle you to have the minutes of the grand jury published or made public."
Immediately, this question was put to the clerk:
"Were there any witnesses who appeared before the grand jury prior to the return of this indictment who appeared and gave evidence in an investigation of R. W. Martin, who was indicted under the name of Bob Martin, other than A. A. Murphy and Charles Erpelding?"
The objections aforesaid were again sustained. Another witness, Sheriff Homer A. Beasley, of Keokuk County, was then called, and asked if he did appear before the October grand jury before the instant indictment was returned, and if he did testify before said grand jury in this matter. The State interposed the same objections, and in addition, that:
"The statute provides these matters shall be kept secret, and that there is no authority of law for such examination by counsel for the defendant at this time, or at any other time, as the defendant is now attempting."
The court sustained the objections.
The provisions of our Code pertinent to the instant matter and the decisions of this court on the matter are sufficient to support the rulings of the trial court. The grand jury is an inquisitorial body. It is a secret body. The clerk is under an oath of secrecy. Section 13694, Code, 1927. Even a member of the grand jury may not make disclosures, unless, in the opinion of the court, it is necessary in the administration of justice. Section 13725, Code, 1927. A witness called before the grand jury must be sworn. Section 13710, Code, 1927. No one is permitted to be in the grand jury room when a witness is examined, except the members of the grand jury, the clerk, and the county attorney. Sec State v. McPherson, 114 Iowa 492, 87 N.W. 421, as bearing upon this general proposition. See Section 13782, Code, 1927.
The statutes governing these matters are not intended to permit a defendant to enter upon a fishing expedition to discover what happened prior to the return of an indictment by the grand jury. If this were permitted, it would result in the impeachment of the grand jury, its proceedings, and its minutes. It is not incumbent on said body to indorse the name of every person who happened to be called before it in the investigation of a crime. A witness may give evidence that is wholly immaterial, and which in no manner tends to incriminate a person under investigation by said grand jury. It is not the intent of the statute that the minutes of the grand jury should be incumbered by irrelevant, immaterial and useless matter. See State v. Little, 42 Iowa 51; State v. Lewis, 96 Iowa 286, 65 N.W. 295. The trial court cannot inquire into the materiality of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial